EXTRACTS FROM WIER.
I.
Besides those noted by Scot in the margins, I have gathered the following from Wier, though very possibly some may have been overlooked. By far the greater number occur in the 12th Book of Scot; that is, they consist chiefly of various charms and illustrative tales.
I would not be understood, however, as thinking that Scot in all these cases copied from Wier, any more than I would assert that some later Astronomer Royal has quoted from Herschel, without mentioning him, the fact “that the earth revolves around the sun”. The reference in both to the Homerica medicatio from Ferrerius (in Scot, Ferrarius) is a notable one in point, and two other instances will be found in Notes on the Text. I quite agree, also, with Prof. W. T. Gairdner when he says, Insanity, p. 61: “Nothing, however, is more evident than that Scot, however indebted to Wier (and both of them probably to Cornelius Agrippa...), was far in advance of either in the clearness of his views and the unwavering steadiness of his leanings to the side of humanity and justice.”
N.B.—“&c.” for the words following in the page has been omitted, as unnecessary.
P. 7. The reader may compare the first, and the first part of par. 2 of ch. 3 with Wier, De Lamiis, c. 5, “Quocirca eam”, etc., and judge whether the remembrance of this latter did not suggest Scot’s words.
P. 53. “One Bessus.” From Plutarch. Also given by Wier; but I have lost the reference.
P. 111. “Chasaph.” Scot seems to have remembered Wier ii, 1, § 2, but not to have copied him. Wier gives Exod. 22, 18. οὐ περιβιὠσατε; Scot, οὔκ ἐπιζεώσετε, a variant I know not whence obtained, not being in the Oxford 1821 ed. of the Sept.
P. 123. “Eusebius... poison.” Wier iii, 38, § 2 and 4. Both call Lucilia Lucilla. Scot omits § 3 regarding Alphonso of Arragon.
P. 126. “This word Ob... Ventriloqui.” Wier ii, 1, § 12.
P. 177. “Onen... to the interpretation of dreames.” Wier ii, 1, § 8, “aliquando observara somnia.”
P. 183. “The art... in digging for monie [... omit]. There must... treasure awaie.” Wier v, 11, § 1. Scot adds “bona” after “videre”.
P. 184. “℞ The fat... impudentlie affirmed them” [close of ch.]. Wier iii, 17, § 2, 3. But from the first and last words of Scot’s chapter, he, as well as Wier, took these things from J. B. Porta, though he may have been led by Wier to consult Porta.
P. 230. “Balsamus.” Scot’s words at the beginning of the chapter were suggested by Wier v, 9, § 4, though he has added some descriptive particulars; then these words are given by both, Wier adding that three Agnus Dei’s were sent by Pope Urban.
P. 231. “A wastcote of proofe.” Wier v, 8, § 2. Scot’s “little virgine girl” is a “junioribus notæ castitatis puelles”, his “hat” is “galea”.
——— “Gaspar.” These verses, with a longer proem, are in Wier v, 8 § 1.
P. 240. “Homerica medicatio.” Wier v, 19, § 1. See note in its place. Wier quotes at length from Ferrarius, § 2, 3, and 4, gives his name rightly, and rightly reads in the present passage verbis, and not as Scot, verbi.
——— “Nos habitat.” Wier v, 19, § 3, from Ferrarius.
P. 242. “For the falling evil... no more.” Wier v, 8, § 2; but he finishes the charm with “In nomine [etc.]. Amen.”
P. 243. “Ananizapta”, v, 9, § 6. Wier gives Ananisapta, has “quæ” instead of “dum”, l. 1, and adds “contra febres a quodam nebulone... offerantur”.
——— “Write upon a piece of bread” [for the bite of a mad dog]. This Scot gives from v, 8, § 6. But Wier has “... Khiriori essera... fede”. Afterwards, “Vel hoc scriptum in papiro, aut pane, homini sive cani in os inseritur”. In the O rex, etc., there are crosses after each person of the Trinity, and a “prax” after Gaspar, while “I max” is “ymax”.
P. 244. “Against the toothache.” “Galbes, etc.... persanate.” These two charms, omitting the intervening one, are in Wier v, 8, § 6, adding to the persanate one, “hoc scriptum appenditur”. The second, “At saccaring”, etc., is given v, 4, § 2.
——— “Let a virgine”, v, 8, § 3. Wier preceding this with the words, “Ita antiquitas credebat, verbascum cum sua radice tusum, vino aspersum, folioque involutum, & in cinere calefactum, strumisque impositum, eas abigere, si hoc fecisset virgo jejuna jejuno, & manu tangens supino dixisset.”
P. 246. “A gentlewoman”, v, 18, § 1. But the charm is a versification, probably by Scot himself, of a German prose sentence, and it was given and the story told “a viro Ecclesiastico, non infimi nominis Theologo”. Scot evidently thought that this description of the perpetrator of so indecorous a jest might better be omitted, even though he were a German.
——— “To open locks.... Take a peece... Amen”, v, 11, § 2; but “hinder” is anteriore. The essential part of the words just marked as omitted is in v, 11, § 3.
——— “A charme to drive... house.” This and the marginal note are in v, 14, § 4. But Wier places “vel” between each of the Bible sentences, therefore Scot’s “this sentence” should have been “any of these sentences”.
P. 247. “Another for the same”, v, 14, § 2, beginning “Item”. Scot has shortened his “fiftlie”, and omitted that the beggar must pray with all attention. Also in his haste he omits that the conjuror gave doses of rhubarb and other herbs twice daily.
P. 247. “The sicke man”, v, 23, § 6. Wier gives the words of the “gospell” that is to be carried about his neck—“Hoc genus dæmonii non ejicitur, nisi jejunio & oratione”—taken, though apparently by memory only, from Matt. 17, 20, Vulg. The names in Scot’s margin are in Wier, Gualterio, Bernhardo.
Pp. 247-8. “This office or conjuration.” The paragraph is from v, 22, § 6, with a slight condensation of the first words.
P. 248. “A charme for the bots”, v, 4, § 8. Scot only omitting the “sanctus” before “Job”.
P. 249. “There are also”, v, 4, § 7. Wier commences—“Vidi, haud ita pridem apud magnæ authoritatis virum nobilem, librum conscriptum execrabilem, flammis dignissimum, plenum exorcismis, frequenti crucis consignatione, & ex sancta Scriptura formulis in nomine Patris [etc.] finitis, contra equorum non modo morbos quoslibet,” etc. But he has not “as it... Rome.”
——— “Item, the Duke of Alba”, v, 4, § 5. “Equo item Vice-regis in sacello suum fuisse locum ubi celebraretur Missa. Continebat & dux exercitus vexillum in manu, quamdiu sollennibus ritibus idipsum uti campanæ solent, baptizaretur. Ornabat & hunc actum effigies D. Virginis Mariæ cum filiolo in eodem volans, & duæ complicatæ manus ad stipulantium morem.”
——— “That wine”, v, 4, § 9. Scot omitting after eager, “eo anno”.
P. 252. “Mahomets pigeon”, i, 19, § 3, 4. Scot omitting all notice of the apostate confederate Sergius, of the trained bull, and of the words before rex esto, viz., “Quicunque tauro jugum imponat”.
P. 253, “At Memphis in Aegypt”, i, 19, § 1, faithfully yet freely.
P. 254. “I conjure thee O serpent... unto the Jewes”, v, 4, § 10. But Wier has no “otherwise”, nor any signs of the whole being two conjurations. After Jewes he has, “te vermem a me discedere oportet, velut a Judæis discessit Deus noster”. His magical words are “Eli lass eiter,... eitter,... eitter”. Scot’s second “I conjure” is “exorciso”, and for fear of error, Wier’s “Divam Mariam” becomes “S. Mary”.
P. 257. “A charme... with images of wax... afterwards in another.” P. 258, l. 1, is in Wier v, 11, § 6, 7, 8, except that “And if they were inserted”, etc., is Scot’s. The charm words in Wier are “Alif cafiel zaza...” adding “leviatan leutatace”. Scot also gives a sentence which perplexed me till I turned to Wier, “& ferrum, quo homo necatus fuit, traditur alteri imagini, [of wax] ut alterius necandi simulachri caput transigat”. Also, after “angell must be mentioned”, Wier adds, “Non absimile monstrum fingitur, ut quis tibi in omnibus obsequatur”.
P. 259. “Imparibus... breake a bone of him”, v, 12, § 1. I doubt, however, Scot’s dividing “Jesus autem” [etc.] from “You shall not” [etc.] by the last “otherwise”, for Wier does not, and in § 3 tells of one who silently submitted to all tortures, and on whom was found—“sub scruffiam inter crines quandam parvam schedulam”, containing “✠ Jesus autem transiens ✠ per mediam illorum ✠ os non comminueris ex eo ✠”.
P. 260. “Charmes to... theefe”, to end of second paragraph, except from “even as plainlie” to “confutation hereof”, will be found in v, 5, § 1, 2. But there are some additions in Wier (it may be from Cardan) which I leave to the student reader to look up.
P. 261. “Another waie... theefe”, v, 5, § 6. Wier adds, “ex sacrifici libro clam a me subtracta”. Scot’s “sea side” is “fluentem aquam”, the “forme of conjuration” is “per Christi passionem, mortem, & resurrectionem (quam propter impie curiosus celo)”.
P. 262. “To put out the theeves eie”, v, 5, § 7. “A coopers hammar, or addes”, is “malleo cypressimo”.
P. 263. “Saint Adelberts cursse” to “in morte sumus”, Wier, v, 6, § 1. Scot, evidently by accident, omits after made orphanes: “sint maledicti in civitate”, and by a press or other error the “& odio habeantur”, etc., becomes “or hated of all men living”, a change slightly injuring the sense. I know not whether it be due to the more frequent repetition of maledicti in the Latin, but this curse reads to me more horrible in the original than when translated. I would also note that here, as sometimes elsewhere, Wier speaks more, and more strongly, against some of these things than does Scot.
P. 266. “They naile a wolves head”, v, 20, § 3.
P. 267. “Terque”, given in Wier, v, 21, § 1.
——— “Adveniat”, v, 21, § 6.
——— “Baccare”, v, 21, § 4.
P. 269. “To spoile a theefe”, v, 5, § 8. But the strange words are in Wier, “Droch, myrroch esenaroth”, and in the next set of unintelligible words “Eson ✠” is “✠ eson” and “age” is “ege”. He also explains more clearly, I think, that all these conjuring terms are to be thrice repeated.
P. 270. “Say three severall times”, v, 4, § 6, the final Amen and some ✠s being omitted.
——— “Charmes against a quotidian”, v, 8, § 7. With these differences, the three pieces, “the jejunus”, should “easdem tribus diebus edat”. Instead of Scot’s “Otherwises” we have “Si minus successerit, in pane missali scribitur: O febrem omni laude colendam: in altero,... in tertio... Si nec hic modus juverit, denuo in pane dicto toties pingatur:... quem diebus, ut supra, mane absumat.” Whence it would seem that three massecakes were in each instance to be used, and not one divided into three, a thought probably suggested by the three pieces of apple.
——— “For... agues intermittent.” The whole paragraph is in v, 8, § 7.
P. 271. “S. Barnard”, Wier i, 16, § 6.
——— “Take three consecrated... Trinitie”, v, 4, § 2, “Recipe tres panes Missales”, etc.
P. 272. “In the yeere.” This paragraph is, with a little freeness of translation and a slight addition, both in the unimportant parts, from v, 4, § 5.
P. 273. “Take a cup of cold water.” This paragraph is from v, 4, § 3. Scot’s English verses are thus in Wier: “✠ In sanguine Adæ orta est mors: ✠ in sanguine Christi redempta est mors: ✠ in eodem sanguine Christi præcipio tibi ✠ ô sanguis, ut fluxum tuum cohibeas”. Wier then goes to “Aliud: De latere ejus” [etc.], and continues: “Item (Otherwise) ex quacunque corporis parte profluentum sanguinem cohibere nituntur his verbis: Christus natus est in Bethlehem” [etc.]; and then, without any Aliud, Item, or other sign that it is not a continuation of the same charm, “Tene innominatum digitum in vulnere, & fac cum eo” [etc.]; Scot’s “five wounds” being “sanctorum quinque vulnerum”.
P. 273. “There was a jollie fellowe” to “This dooth Joh: Wierus”, etc., is from v, 15, § 1. Wier begins, “Ad insignis malitiæ chirurgum”, but Scot’s “jollie” seems to have been taken from his drinking habits, which in Wier are spoken of in a more pronounced manner.
P. 275. “This surgion”, v, 15, § 2. But Scot’s “ague” is in Wier “febrem”, and it is added that not long afterwards the patient died, in his (Wier’s) opinion of an empyema. I marvel that Scot omitted this last.
P. 276. “Otherwise: Jesus Christ”, v, 15, § 3. Scot omits the ✠ after the first Christ.
——— “Another such cousening”, v, 15, § 4.
P. 282. “At Easter”, v, 40, § 4. Note, in the margin I have placed [? or] for the “on” of text. The “?” is unnecessary, for in Wier it is “infra cornua vel aures”.
——— “Otherwise Jacobus”, v, 40, § 3.
P. 294. “The corral”, v, 21, § 5. But Scot refers to Avicenna, though Wier does not; nor do the names of the precious stones spoken of, nor the remarks upon them, coincide with those in Wier at the above reference.
P. 303. “Also that a woman”, Wier vi, 9, § 1, gives this, but his words differ so much, that it can only be that both happened to notice this common superstition.
P. 421. “Exorciso te creaturam aquæ... apostatis”, v, 21, § 16, giving “apostaticis”. But Scot’s giving the whole form, both of this and of the exorcism of salt, and his italics, show that he took it from, I suppose, the Missale or other R. C. book of devotions, though Wier may have given the idea.
P. 433. “Jacobus de Chusa”, i, 13, § 1, to middle of 6. Scot’s first paragraph is different; in the rest he sometimes amplifies, sometimes condenses, sometimes omits Wier’s words, and Wier says that he gives J. de Chusa’s verba fideliter. The first prayer at its close is in Scot shortened.
P. 445. “I conjure thee.” This, like the “... creaturam salis”, 421, is given in Latin by Wier, v, 21, § 27, down to “adjuratus”. Both the Latin and English in Scot are the same, except a slight difference after “judicare”, arising from Scot, in this second instance, giving the sense rather than the verba ipsissima.
P. 507. “Rabbi Abraham... collected.” Translated from i, 6, § 7.
P. 518. “For Beelzebub... manium”, i, 5, § 3.
519. Nisroch (5); Tartac [not Tarcat] (4); Beelphegor (1); Adramalech (2); Chamos (6); Dagon (8); Astarte (7); Melchom (7); are in Wier i, 5, § 3, with other gods, and in the order here marked. The wording after each is also Wier’s, as is the error “Ozee 9, 11” for 9, 10. Both also make the same mistake as to the duality of Astarte and Astaroth, because in 1 Kings ii, 5, she is called Astarthe in the Vulg., whence Wier took his names, and Scot followed him, and not his English Bible. Both mention that the word means “riches, &c.”, and that it was a city of Og; though both, curiously enough, here forget the observation they had made elsewhere as to other cities, that it was dedicated to, and therefore called after, the deity. Scot omits also Wier’s supposition that both Beelzebub and Beelphegor were Priapus.
P. 520. This chapter, from the “heading” to the end, is derived from i, 21, § 1, to § 25, but is much abbreviated; some titles also are omitted; but except for a slight change in the positions of both Diabolus, and his last names, “owle”, etc., Scot follows the order of Wier.
P. 521. “Lares... cities”, i, 6, § 6, except that Wier has “cuam agere” for both “trouble”—an odd word here—and “set to oversee”.
——— “Virunculi terrei... drawe water.” Follows generally, though not quite literally, i, 22, § 5.
——— “Dii geniales... birth”, i, 6, § 6, shortened.
P. 522. “Tetrici... Subterranei; Cobali; Guteli or Trulli (the etymology being Scot’s); Virunculi [montani, Wier]; Dæmones montani.” These being in the same order, are adopted from Wier i, 22, § 8-11, but much shortened. “Hudgin” immediately follows as “Hutkin”, § 12.
——— “Hudgin... ware a cap”, i, 22, § 12. Here it is said—“pileo caput opertus unde & vulgo Pileatum eum appellabant rurales, hoc est, ein Hedeckin, lingua Saxonica.”
——— “Familiares Dæmones... Simon Samareus... to come”, etc.—but of course omitting Feats and Dr. Burcot—are from i, 22, § 7. Also “Albæ mulieres and Albæ Sibyllæ”, though shortened. The “did much harm” is from Wier. “Deumus, Agnan, Grigii, Charoibes” and “Hovioulsira” follow in order, § 23-26. See note on Deumus.
P. 523. “Raise thunder... Elicius”, i, 6, § 6, but in the enumeration of the “Dii selecti” Wier and Ennius are not followed, but Varro.
P. 525. “As namelie of beasts... Latus”, is, I believe, from Strabo originally, but by Scot was taken, I think, from Wier i, 6, § 2.
P. 533. “Pope Benedict the eight and ninth”, i, 16, § 3 and 4. But Scot’s “seen a hundred years after”, whereas Wier only has “postea”, seems to show that the former had referred to Platina.